halofanonfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Flameslash/KNIGHT Program
From what I gather, you're simply making an entirely separate program that is essentially identical to the SPARTAN program, yet with intention of putting the super soldiers it produces in command of combat arms units: something that is in itself unreasonable. As I've said in the past, the entire purpose of super soldiers is to create the ideal infantry: uncompromisingly loyal, physically superior to, better-equipped than, and better-trained than conventional Special Operations Forces. Such augmentations ultimately mean nothing more than better performance in combat: one cannot improve artificially those traits that create an ideal leader, and that aside, why spend millions upon millions in creating the perfect infantryman only to have him direct the flow of battle from the rear echelon? It's the same reason that SPARTANs are not normally commissioned as officers: it's counter to their entire purpose. In regard to physical augmentations, you do realise that it is impossible to take the comics-esque "Wolverine" route and coat one's skeleton in material in order to bulletproof it? Not only would it lead to negligible advantage in combat (as death would more often result from blood loss, perforation of major organs, or hydrostatic shock), problems would abound medically: in addition, no coating of material would be able to render one's skeleton bulletproof unless it were extremely thick, which would be impossible to implement. I'm not sure if I explained it well enough if you got that impression. The KNIGHTs were trained for far less time, and their augmentations were a lot cheaper and less effective. They had far less and weaker bone grafts, no skeletal and less muscular growth augments, and no reaction time increase. It's pretty much ORION/SPARTAN-I but designed to create leaders. And I don't mean office leaders, I meant more like in combat leaders, like Captains and Lieutenants fight with their troops in some modern armies. Flameslash (talk) 01:09, July 30, 2012 (UTC) There really is no point to spending so much in the way of time and effort when Officers' Schools and Service Academies already do well enough to produce military leaders. It's simply unnecessary, and ultimately a waste of funds. As I said, the purpose of supersoldier programs is to produce superior infantry, as creating superior leaders does not require physical augmentations or the issuance of advanced kit, and cannot be done artificially. Good Officers are born out of combat experience, education in strategy and tactics, or both: neither requires spending millions upon millions in augmentation, advanced training, and the like. But it's not making officers, it's making infantry. You seem to think I'm talking about Generals who command from a distance, but I'm not. What I'm talking about is more platoon leaders who command from the frontline. And Officer Academies don't train for 6 years pretty much nonstop. I can see a military doing this, because without a properly trained leader, troops in the field are far less effective. So making leaders who are harder to kill and better in combat than any other soldier makes sense. Flameslash (talk) 01:46, July 30, 2012 (UTC) To clarify, in case you're not informed: the Infantry and the Commissioned Officer Corps are not two mutually exclusive groups. Infantry is a Combat Arms Branch, essentially the collective term applied to a number of occupations with similar duties. Officers are simply individuals who did not enlist, but were commissioned through an Officer School, Service Academy, or such: Officers lead units at Platoon level and higher. That said, Officers may lead Infantry units, just as they may lead Armoured units, Intelligence units, and every other sort of military formation. As for the article's issues, the point stands: that developing a supersoldier program specifically for the commissioning of "Super Officers" is ultimately a waste of funding, as even Infantry Officers are not meant to engage in direct combat. Infantry Officers, from Platoon Leaders to Regimental Colonels, are meant to direct troops on the field, not engage the enemy themselves: for example, a Cavalry Officer leading a mechanised platoon will often remain mounted (inside his APC/IFV) while the troops under his command dismount to manoeuvre, observing the battlefield and issuing orders as the situation dictates. As a common analogy, Officers serve as the Chess Players, while the men under their command serve as Chess Pieces. To devote all these resources to creating such expensive investments with negligible advantage over conventional Officers ultimately makes little sense. Officers' Schools and Service Academies do well to churn out military leaders at a quick pace, and ultimately the most important factor in creating the ideal leader is combat experience, something that all Combat Arms Officers ultimately gain without billions spent for each. Your military knowledge is clearly not as good as mine in you think no officers ever fight alongside the rank and file. In the British Army, officers up to at least Captains will fight with their men. I'm not as sure about other armed forces, but I'm fairly sure it's not just the British Army where this occurs. Flameslash (talk) 23:50, August 3, 2012 (UTC) What guarantee is there that military doctrine will be the same in the 26th century while humanity is fighting a losing war as it is in the 21st century? Anyway, I am going by various sources including an ex British Army soldier, true stories written by military veterans, Wikipedia, Halo fanfictions (Survivors of Gamma Company and The Battle of Sigma Octanus IV in particular), and limited training in fieldcraft and infantry tactics. AR may be a special forces operative, but I doubt Korean doctrine is the same as NATO doctrine. Flameslash (talk) 21:46, August 4, 2012 (UTC) Here's my $0.02 Flameslash. What everyone here is saying is that there is no point in augmenting soldiers to be officers, as they would likely only be in combat for a few years until they made company grade officer, and stayed in the back. My recommendation is that you change this from being a whole other program, to some promising SPARTAN IIIs from Gamma Company who were put into advanced training, and were commissioned as warrant officers, as WOs, at least in the USMC. "...typically fulfill are those that would normally call for the authority of a commissioned officer. However, they require an additional level of technical proficiency and practical experience that a commissioned officer would not have had the opportunity to achieve." (Wikipedia) So, having WO Spartan-IIIs would allow them to lead in combat, without them becoming officers, and therefore eventually having to fight in the back.--B1blancer2 (talk) 22:09, August 4, 2012 (UTC) Lancer: Warrant Officers in every military that I'm familiar with do not have Infantry specialisations. So far as my knowledge extends, Warrant Officers are technical, not strategic or tactical, experts: for example, Helo pilots. That aside, however, the issue is that there is no need to have augmented supersoldiers leading troops. Flameslash: The ROK Armed Forces were more or less founded by the U.S. Military just prior to the Korean War. Over time the ROK Military has become increasingly autonomous, to the extent that, if American forces were to leave tomorrow, we would be able to fully manage our military affairs. That said, frankly speaking, most militaries' combat doctrines are uniformly similar: there isn't much in the way of variety when considering the facets of modern warfare. As for the extent to which I am knowledgeable in the subject: I served two terms of service, first as a Military Police Officer (which, so far as the ROKA is concerned, is essentially Infantry) along the DMZ and in Afghanistan, second as a Mechanised Infantryman in Iraq. Following my re-enlistment, I volunteered for, and was inducted into, Special Warfare. Now with that said, I reiterate: Officers do not engage in direct combat with the enemy. While they may be with their men in combat, and while they may fire and be fired at, their primary purpose is to direct their men on the battlefield. That said, it makes no right sense to augment them, when the enlisted Infantry do the bulk of the fighting: as well, it makes no sense to waste funding on creating "super officers", when the advantages will be negligible when considering the rapid rate at which Service Academies and Officers' Schools would be able to produce military leaders. Ok, you win. Delete this please. Flameslash (talk) 20:00, August 6, 2012 (UTC) Vote for Namespacing For #Issues not rectified, and the author has requested deletion (namespacing effectively serves the same purpose, whilst being less extreme). #Per Athena.